GR 177313; (December, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 177313 ; December 19, 2007
NIÑO MASAS y MILAN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Niño Masas was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed to the Court of Appeals. However, the appellate court dismissed his appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief within the required period, citing Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner, through his Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration, invoking the exception under Section 8, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure for appellants represented by counsel de oficio. The Court of Appeals denied the motion, expressing concern that applying the exception would set a precedent for delays by court-appointed counsel, and noted that no explanation was given for the failure to file the brief or seek an extension.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief without considering the exception for counsel de oficio and without prior notice to the appellant.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the appeal. The Court of Appeals committed a fundamental error by applying Rule 50 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to a criminal case. The correct governing rule is Section 8, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. This provision explicitly states that the appellate court may dismiss an appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief, “except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.” The exception is clear and unambiguous. The appellate court itself referred to petitioner’s PAO lawyer as “counsel de oficio” in its resolutions, and petitioner’s status as an indigent litigant supported this designation.
Furthermore, Section 8 requires that any motu proprio dismissal must be “with notice to the appellant,” meaning the appellant must be given an opportunity to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. No such notice was given to petitioner. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to appeal, while statutory, is essential, and courts must proceed with caution, especially in criminal cases involving liberty and where the appellant is indigent. Dismissals based on procedural technicalities should not be resorted to when they deprive a party of substantive justice. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for reinstatement and proper adjudication on the merits.